Well it didnt take me long to find a link with some truly disgusting incidences perpetrated by the TSA in the performing of its “duties” to “protect” American citizens from terrorist attack. In my opinion, the terrorists would almost be nicer….

At what point will Americans finally stop losing more liberty and freedom? With each passing year, the iron grip of the government gets even tighter, and each time it does we are told that it is either for “our safety” or for “national security”. One can only imagine what is going to happen the next time there is any kind of “terror incident” on an airplane. They are going to point to all those Americans who are complaining about “enhanced pat downs” and TSA groping as the reason why security is not tough enough. So where does all this end? Will we eventually all have to go through a body cavity search just to get on an airplane? Will they start groping us at school, at work and at sporting events? Are we going to have to “lock down” America from coast to coast to ensure that no terrorist ever is able to harm any American?

The way that we are going, we soon won’t have to worry about “terrorists” taking away our freedoms because they will already be gone. Is any amount of “safety” worth living like this? If America turns into one big prison camp where we are all prodded, poked, groped, watched, tracked and treated like sub-human slaves will it even be worth living in anymore?

The following are 22 quotes about enhanced pat downs and TSA groping. They are presented without commentary because they speak for themselves. Please share these quotes as widely as possible. If Americans do not wake up now, when will they ever wake up?….

I stood there, an American citizen, a mom traveling with a baby with special needs formula, sexually assaulted by a government official. I began shaking and felt completely violated, abused and assaulted by the TSA agent. I shook for several hours, and woke up the next day shaking.

“She said ‘spread your legs.’ And then she took her full palms and started at my neck and ran all the way down my body, full palms, constant contact. And when she got down to my feet, she was in constant contact from my ankles all the way up to my groin, across my groin, and down the other leg. And she did that twice.”

“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”

If some total stranger walked up to you in the street and said “I am either going to see you naked or touch your genitals”, What would be the likelihood of that person walking away from that encounter?

“So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers.”

The agent went up my right leg first and then met my vagina with full force….the same on the other leg with the same result. She then used both of her hands to feel my breasts and squeezing them. At this point I was in shock.

I spend on average $30K per year on business travel. The airlines get the bulk of this but hotels, car rentals, meals and miscellaneous expenses add up as well. Where I can cut travel, I will. When those associated with airport travel feel the financial pinch just watch how fast this all will change.

It is difficult to imagine New Yorkers being porno-screened and sexually groped on crowded subway platforms or showing up an hour or two in advance for clearance for a 15 minute subway ride, but once bureaucrats get the bit in their teeth they take absurdity to its logical conclusion.

I introduced legislation last week that is based on a very simple principle: federal agents should be subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. If you would face criminal prosecution or a lawsuit for groping someone, exposing them to unwelcome radiation, causing them emotional distress, or violating indecency laws, then TSA agents should similarly face sanctions for their actions.

Hey fellow blogsters, sorry I have not been posting anything new lately. I have been taking a much needed break away from all things conspiracy etc, and concentrating on a few very important events that have been taking place.

In particular, the US Dollar seems to be on very shaky ground, and I have been following the financial crisis of the US.

I have also been watching the EU and the Euro. They are so shaky in Europe, its a house of cards just waiting for someone to open the door and the breeze blow in and tumble it all down….

Then there’s China, and it’s always a worry what they are up to, but if it really was them and their sub that set off that missile along the coastline of the US then that can mean nothing but future trouble in my mind!

Then there’s Nth Korea – god help us all if they have nukes…..

We have Yemen too dont forget, simmering away ready to break out!

And mustnt forget the United States own govt. department the dearly beloved TSA who insist on creating one scandal after another at airport security check-ins…..first it was feeling up 7 yr old children, then out came one employee caught wanking at the naked body scanners, then a nun protested she had been felt up, then we hear of the crippled man having his urine bag burst open and getting covered in urine……the list just goes on and keeps getting worse!

So you see, even tho I have been away from here, I have been doing my homework still…..so much info…..so little time.

Today I met for coffee a man who hosted what I would call “Truther Events”. He was very well educated, with definitive knowledge on many political questions of the day.

This blog is in direct response to the conversation we had, and the religious fervour he had when trying to convince me his way was the “right” way.

Basically, my mother raised me too well to be rude to his face – so I politely listened to the points he made, tried to counter with a few arguments, but then gave up as his fervour became embarrassing in such a public place!

The following are my first 5 mins research on google – trying to refute each point he was sooo adamant was correct.

Its not that I dont “believe” in my own way, it’s that I cannot stand wild statements made without hard scientific backing. This man was sane and intelligent and obviously well educated, and I believe him when he cites his extensive travel and research on the subjects.

So, his first claim that threw me was:

Dinosaurs lived only a few thousand years ago – and as per a quote in the bible stating they were basically “made” creatures, were therefore in some way mutant and sterile. He claimed there had never been baby dinosaurs as they simply did not and could not exist. Now, I think it’s fair to say that dinosaurs were reptiles and therefore laid eggs. Babies hatch out of the eggs after a certain incubation period. I think this is a fact. Never know. In 200 yrs maybe that will be proved to be wrong too. But for now we have to assume this to be fact. I immediately found this link showing a fossil found of a snake coiled around a nest of hatching dinosaur eggs.

I am sure I have heard of other finds of baby dinosaurs inside larger ones stomachs. Granted, to be fair, my research does state baby dinosaur finds have been rare, but then states this is probably expected if all the large predator types ate the babies (it would be like a turtle hatching…..of hundreds hatched only 3 or so make it to adulthood). Plus, juvenile bones degrade very quickly, hence the lack of fossil remains.

The gentleman also stated there is definitely NO link showing how dinosaurs ever mutated into winged creatures and never would be as it was absolutely impossible. I present the next clip…..

He refused to believe the relatively new discoveries of cave paintings in France showing cavemen hunting dinosaurs

(NaturalNews) New research shows that the insect-repelling chemical deet actually functions in the same way as deadly nerve gases and dangerous pesticides, by attacking the nervous systems of both insects and mammals.
“These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals,” said researcher Vincent Corbel of Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement in Montpellier.
The chemical known as deet (for N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is found in nearly every commonly used mosquito repellent in the world, and eight billion doses have been applied since its introduction to the consumer market in 1957. The chemical was originally developed as an insect repellent by the U.S. Army in 1946, following experience with jungle warfare in World War II.

Deet’s popularity comes largely from its effectiveness in repelling a variety of medically significant insects over longer periods of time than more natural repellents (such as certain vegetable-based oils), and the fact that it can be incorporated into sprays, liquids or lotions. Yet although researchers have long insisted that the chemical is safe, they still recommend that consumers use the minimum amount of repellent necessary to cover exposed skin or clothing, and that deet repellents not be applied directly to any irritated or injured skin. While the United States allows the sale of 100 percent deet repellents, many other countries limit maximum concentrations of the chemical to 30 or 50 percent.

In spite of the chemical’s long use, researchers are unsure exactly how deet functions to repel mosquitoes. It has long been believed to affect mosquito behavior without harming the insects, probably by interfering with their sense of smell and their ability to find human prey.

Yet the new study, published in the journal BioMed Central Biology, suggests that deet may function by interfering directly with insects’ nervous systems.

“We’ve found that deet is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, in both insects and mammals,” the researchers said.

In experiments performed in cockroaches and rats, the researchers found that deet blocked the action of the neurological enzyme acetylcholinesterase. This is the same mechanism that causes the toxic effects of popular carbamate and organophosphate pesticides, as well as chemical weapons such as sarin and VX nerve gas. This may mean that deet repellants are actually insecticides and could damage the human nervous system.

Organophosphates are among the pesticides most commonly implicated in pesticide poisoning worldwide, and are also a commonly used suicide method in agricultural areas. Like nerve gases, organophosphates irreversibly inactivate acetylcholinesterase, leading to excessive salivation and eye watering at low doses, and muscle spasms or death at higher doses. Although carbamates are not as toxic as organophosphates, their effects can be just as severe at high enough doses.

Strong evidence also links these pesticides to dangerous health effects caused by long-term exposure even at low doses.

Previous studies have implicated deet in causing seizures in children, but the current study is the first to uncover how the chemical acts directly on the nervous system.

The researchers also found that the effects of deet were enhanced when it was used in combination with organophosphates or carbamates, as in mixed repellent-insecticide products.

Bahie Abou-Donia of the Duke University Medical Center said that the new findings are consistent with previous research into the risks of deet.

“Deet is a good chemical for protection against insects,” Abou-Donia said. “But prolonged exposure results in neurological damage, and this is enhanced by other chemicals and medications.”

The researchers in the new study suggested that pregnant women and children under the age of six avoid using deet-containing mosquito repellents. Abou-Donia went farther, calling for such products to carry warning labels about deet’s potential to cause neurological harm.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a review of deet’s safety planned for 2012.

I have done my own research, and the Australian product “OFF!” falls under this banner too. I just checked – it contains 150grams per kilo – dammit I only bought it because I thought it was a low toxicity repellent.

Here in Australia the Government set up a “Swine Flu Hotline”.

Patients were asked a few general questions (that could easily fit the normal seasonal flu). Then, if they answered yes to “have you experienced coughing, sore throat, nasal congestion” etc, they were told they had swine flu!!

This is how the numbers of the “pandemic” (hah) were obtained! I know who the “swines” in this case were, and I’m not talking about 4 legged pigs!

Swine flu drug hand-out service raises concerns

By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News Swine flu was the first pandemic for 40 yearsJust 12% of patients who got anti-flu drugs using the swine flu hotline and website actually had the virus, figures obtained by the BBC suggest.

More than 1.1m people collected the drugs – which can cause side effects such as nausea – after being diagnosed by the National Pandemic Flu Service.

But figures obtained under a freedom of information request show that of 16,560 people swabbed, 1,932 tested positive.

The Patients Association said this raised questions about the system used.

The flu service was launched last July at the height of the pandemic. It was the first time that prescription drugs had been handed out en masse by the NHS without a patient having to consult a doctor.

Instead, people who felt ill were put through an electronic check-list. Those with swine flu symptoms were then given a voucher number to collect anti-viral drugs, which were used to relieve the illness.

The drugs – Relenza and Tamiflu – both caused a number of side-effects, including nausea and, in some cases, vomiting.

It is always easy to say in hindsight, but we really do need to review this

Katherine Murphy Patients Association

Concerns were also voiced that over-use could have led to resistance – many other countries used them much more sparingly.

There was also a debate about how effective the drugs were.

The independent review of the flu strategy, which was published last week, called for a full evaluation of the flu service, admitting it was a controversial issue.

It cost £13.5m to set it up, although the bill for running it until it closed in February this year has never been published because of commercial sensitivity.

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said the findings suggested the government had “over-reacted”.

“It is always easy to say in hindsight, but we really do need to review this. It is a low number and we have to bear this in mind when thinking about pandemic planning.”

Dr Richard Vautrey, of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee, agreed “lessons must be learned”.

But he added: “It must be remembered the service played a valuable role relieving the pressure on the health service.”

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said he was looking to change the funding system to tackle the issue.

He added: “Unnecessary emergency admissions create a burden on the NHS. We know that what matters most to patients is the outcome they get and their experience of the NHS – not simply how quickly they are seen.”

Never trust an expert! Ever wondered why so much health advice is contradictory? It’s because two-thirds of medical research is wrong or fraudulent

Have you been left confused by expert health advice? Even people like me, with years of experience in science and medical journalism, are left scratching our heads when research is contradicted by other studies or turns out to be wrong.

In early 2008, new guidelines for life-saving emergency heart attack treatment said you should no longer bother with the ‘mouth-to-mouth’ part of CPR (­cardiopulmonary resuscitation). Instead, you should pump the chest non-stop.

Having got my Red Cross certificate some years ago, I wanted to know more – but discovered that while this change was endorsed by the European Resuscitation Council, the Red Cross still trains people to give mouth-to-mouth.

Testing, testing: Medical research can often result in incorrect conclusions

So I asked Paul Schwerdt, a cardiac resuscitation expert who restarts hearts daily. He told me to forget about CPR, because even trained laypeople rarely do it well enough to make a difference.

He said the best thing is an Automated External Defibrillator – a portable, easy-to-use device that is increasingly available in public places.

I found an article that said it can raise the survival rate for people having heart attacks outside hospital from 1 per cent to 80 per cent. But then I read another study saying such devices don’t increase survival compared with CPR.

Little wonder that ‘expert’ health research leaves many of us confused – and that includes medics, too.

John Ioannidis, a doctor specialising in infectious diseases who is also a medical research analyst, has looked at hundreds of studies and discovered that two in every three conclusions published in medical journals are later found to be wrong.

The problem is that those are the sorts of conclusion your doctor reads when deciding if it makes sense to prescribe an antibiotic for your child’s ear infection, or if the benefits outweigh the risks in suggesting that middle-aged men take a small daily dose of aspirin.

The two-out-of-three wrongness rate Professor Ioannidis found could be worse: he examined only the less than one- tenth of 1 per cent of research that makes it to prestigious journals. So, what is going on?

Here are some of the reasons why experts get it so wrong:

RESEARCHERS MAKE UP FINDINGS

The research community likes to say that the high-profile cases of fraud we see in the media – such as the South Korean researcher Woo Suk Hwang’s fake claims to have cloned human stem cells in 2005 – are rare events.

Another notorious example was that of the cancer researcher William Summerlin, who won praise for achieving skin grafts on genetically incompatible black and white mice.

In fact, he had used a marker pen to blacken patches of fur on white mice. But research fraud appears to be rife.

In an anonymous survey of 3,200 medical researchers in the journal Nature, a third confessed to at least one fraudulent act or ‘massaging’ research results.

In a similar survey, half the research workers said they knew of studies that involved fraud.

The proportion that are caught is minuscule. What motivates such surprising levels of dishonesty?

The answer is simple: researchers need to keep on publishing impressive findings in scientific journals in order to keep their professional careers alive, and some seem unable to come up with them through honest work.

THEY FIDDLE THE RESULTS

Highly respected scientists toss out data all the time. They pretty much have to. It would be hard to justify keeping ‘findings’ when a key piece of equipment is faulty or if patients in studies are caught not sticking to their drug or diet regimens.

The problem is that it’s not always clear where to draw the line between data that is bad and data that the researcher just doesn’t like.

Douglas Altman, who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine in Oxford, examined more than 100 drug studies, comparing raw data and published results.

He found that in most studies some data was left out – and more often than not it didn’t fit the conclusions and might raise difficult questions.

The ultimate form of data cleansing is throwing away a whole study’s worth of information by not submitting it for publication because the results aren’t the ones hoped for.

Often, these ‘lost’ negative results are from studies funded by drug companies – if you are trying to get a medicine onto the market, you don’t want to publish research that makes it look bad.

A study two years ago revealed that 23 out of 74 antidepressant trials were not published.

All but one had found the drugs to be more or less ineffective compared with a sugar pill placebo.

In contrast, all 37 positive studies were published.

THEY STUDY THE WRONG PATIENTS

The reason trials may prove untrustworthy is because they study the wrong people. A study might be virtuous about its results, except it was assessing a drug’s effects on the wrong people – those who do not represent the patients who would need the drug.

Sometimes people in medical studies are particularly health conscious or unusually ill. Then there is the fact that many studies pay you to take part, which results in a high percentages of poor people, and sometimes alcoholics, drug misusers and the homeless. These sway the results.

Studies in the Nineties appeared to prove hormone replacement therapy (HRT) reduced the risk of heart disease by 50 per cent. Then a large study in 2002 seemed to prove HRT increased the heart disease risk by 29 per cent.

Why the huge discrepancy? It turned out the groups had significantly different balances of people: the first had relatively young women, the second older women, leading both to produce misleading results.

THEY MOVE THE GOALPOSTS

Sheer chance means that in a medical or psychological study, you will always see improvement in a group of people over time – a slight loss in excess weight, for instance.

That change needn’t have anything to do with what is being tested, but the researcher can then claim it was due to whatever was being tested by writing up the study as if that change was what was being tested for.

‘It’s like throwing darts on a wall and then drawing a dartboard around them,’ says Douglas Altman.

He has compared study proposals submitted by researchers with the published findings: ‘We found the stated focus of research was different in more than half the cases.’

In other words, half the results were flukes that had been turned into alleged scientific fact.

THEY STUDY THE WRONG MAMMAL

In a notorious incident four years ago at Northwick Park Hospital, Middlesex, an experimental leukaemia drug was given to six volunteers.

They all quickly fell seriously ill. The drug had been safety-tested beforehand and passed with flying colours. But it had been safety- ested on animals, where it had shown no harmful effects, even at doses up to 500 times higher than those given to the volunteers.

Health research has become dependent on animals. Treatment breakthroughs you see in the media frequently turn out to be based on studies of mice. But often the results don’t translate to humans.

Three-quarters of drugs fail human trials because of dangerous side-effects or simply failing to provide cures.

Adapted from Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us And How To Know When Not To Trust Them by David H. Freedman (Little, Brown, £12.99). To order a copy (P&P free), call 0845 155 0720.